Getting With the ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Treatment of Chronic Angina as a Disease State
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of treatment in patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and stable angina is relief of symptoms and improvement of clinical outcome. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines have emphasized the role of evidence-based therapies. There have been regular updates of the guidelines, with an effort to include the latest data in the recommendations. Since the 2002 guidelines were published, there have been several pivotal studies that have provided strong support for the role of aggressive and optimal medical therapy in improving clinical outcomes in patients with chronic CAD. Recent data from 2 landmark studies have emphasized that optimal medical therapy is as effective as myocardial revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in reducing risk of adverse clinical outcomes. The 2009-2010 guidelines will likely incorporate the findings of these studies and accordingly modify the recommendations for treatment of patients with chronic CAD and stable angina.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it